1. According to the statement of execution of the case No. 2015ddan3096 by the Defendant against C, the Suwon District Court 2015ddan3096, August 2015.

1. Basic facts were divorced between the Defendant and C, and C was the Plaintiff’s wife, and the Defendant’s seizure of corporeal movables under the execution protocol of the instant case No. 2015ddan3096 by Suwon District Court as the Suwon District Court 2015No. 5839 on the attached list (hereinafter “instant movable property”) pursuant to the executory protocol of the case No. 2015dern District Court 2015ddan36 may be recognized by the entry of the evidence No. 1.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the movable property of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot perform compulsory execution based on the enforcement title against C.

B. The Defendant is the person who held that the instant movable was owned by the Plaintiff at the time when the Defendant and C were married to their husband and wife, and that the said movable was owned by the Plaintiff.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff donated the movable property of this case to the wife C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Since the Plaintiff’s temporary use of the instant movable property is determined to have been transferred to C’s residence by allowing C to temporarily use the instant movable property, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the instant movable property ought to be denied.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.